Ex Parte MOLLET et al - Page 5



              Appeal No. 2002-1926                                                               Page 5                
              Application No. 08/693,353                                                                               
              Similarly, independent product claim 42 is directed to a “cell-free Micrococcus varians                  
              culture-medium-supernatant composition comprising a bacteriocin which has agar well                      
              incubation inhibition test activity against bacterial strains including Listeria                         
              monocytogenes.”  Claim 45, the only other independent claim, is directed to a                            
              bacteriocin having a sequence identical to the bacteriocin isolated from deposited                       
              strains CNCM I-1586 and CNCM I-1587, or one differing by “from 1 to 4 amino acids.”                      
                     The specification identifies two strains of Micrococcus varians that produce a                    
              bacteriocin capable of inhibiting Listeria monocytogenes in agar well inhibition tests,                  
              and also outlines a straightforward protocol for determining whether other strains of                    
              Micrococcus varians do as well (specification, pages 7-8).  One skilled in the art, having               
              “in-hand” the knowledge that some strains of Micrococcus varians produce a                               
              bacteriocin capable of inhibiting Listeria monocytogenes, need only subject a given                      
              strain of Micrococcus varians to an agar well inhibition test to determine whether it                    
              could be used to practice the invention.  It may be, as the examiner argues, that                        
              “activity must be determined empirically and cannot be predicted a priori” (Answer,                      
              page 7), but the fact that some experimentation would be required, and some of the                       
              experimentation would produce negative results, is not enough to establish that the                      
              experimentation would be undue.  Nor is it the function of the claims to specifically                    
              exclude possibly inoperative embodiments.  Nothing in the examiner’s analysis                            
              establishes that the number of inoperative embodiments would be significant enough to                    
              force one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment unduly in order to practice the claimed             
              invention.  See Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569,                        
              1576-77, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                                             
                     Finally, the examiner’s rationale does not begin to come to grips with those                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007